Forum: How Would You Compare The Two Conventions?

Every week on Monday, the Council, members of the Watcher’s Council Community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: How Would You Compare The Two Conventions?

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Both were choreographed obviously. I liked Trump’s speech better. HRC seemed to say things were semi ok and she’ll do her dangest to give us 4 more years of it.

No thanks!

Stately McDaniel Manor : One can pretty much safely ignore most of the promises and solemn pronouncements made at the Democrat and Republican conventions, whether made by celebrities, minor political figures, the vice presidential candidates or the candidates themselves. Particularly where the Democrats are concerned, all such things have expiration dates. And even if a given candidate were absolutely honest and did their best to keep their promises, as President, they would quickly learn, as Eisenhower did, there is a very big difference between being a General and a President. Generals give orders; they are carried out. Presidents can, for the most part, and unless they ignore the Constitution, only suggest and persuade.

The 2016 conventions have, however, revealed several facts, none of which bode well for the future of an America based on the Constitution and the rule of law. That America, which recognizes and honors individual freedom and a government only large enough to fulfill its limited, enumerated responsibilities, appears to be, if not dead, then mortally wounded.

It appears that the decades-long work of Progressives in subverting the American education system has been in large part successful. Bernie Sanders could not have been nearly as successful unless the young had no grounding in the ideals of liberty and democracy. His ideas make no sense whatever to those that understand economics, human nature, and history, to say nothing of science. But that’s true of much of the Democrat agenda. Sanders is unquestionably to the left of what passes from mainstream democrat thought, which is already ridiculously far to the left, well into socialist/communist territory.

Yet, if the DNC had not corruptly denied him an honest contest, he would be the Democrat nominee today. This could only happen in a Democrat party so far to the left as to be unrecognizable as an American political party, and so it is. A new generation appears to think government is mother and father, wealth magically materializes from government printing presses, work is for suckers, and social justice, which is about doing whatever makes one feel good about their moral superiority, is all that is necessary to make society utopian.

The Democrat party is no longer recognizable as an American institution, and its failure to include an American flag in its set design until embarrassed about it by outsiders is merely a symptom of its decline.

All is far from well on the opposite side of the aisle.

The Republican establishment worked long and hard to kill the tea Party, that group of Americans whose primary principles were fidelity to the Constitution and small, limited government. What is left is a vile stew of crony capitalism and Republicans in Name Only interested primarily in hanging on to power and reaping its benefits.

Americans were told that if they gave control of Congress to Republicans, much would be accomplished. Instead, Republicans immediately began to complain that they were only 1/3 of the power in the country, and appeared to be essentially helpless in the face of Barack Obama’s repeated usurpations of the powers of the Congress. A Republican Party without a solid, understood philosophical foundation, principles for which it is willing to fight, alienated Americans that considered themselves Republican their entire lives, and made it possible for Donald Trump to defeat far better candidates–and a larger number of vanity candidates.

We are left with a Democrat candidate whose primary claim to the presidency is the possession of a vagina, and who blatantly lies about everything, with the admiring assistance of the Media. Two thirds of Americans don’t like or trust Hillary Clinton, yet it is entirely possible she could become President and hasten the destruction of what remains of American liberty.

Two quick examples: She, through Supreme Court appointments, will destroy the First Amendment. She has explicitly stated she thinks it entirely constitutional to prohibit political speech–particularly any negative political speech aimed at her. Any intelligent school child understands it was securing specifically political speech that was the aim of the First Amendment, yet Hillary Clinton, lawyer and self-described law teacher, thinks it proper to abolish it. And she will, without question, destroy the Second Amendment. In this, she and Barack Obama are virtual clones. They have never seen an anti-liberty proposal or law they did not fully support, and all would do nothing but harass or deny liberty to the law abiding. Even if the Supreme Court, by some miracle, did not do her bidding, she has made it clear she intended to go beyond the precedent for ruling by decree established by Obama.

These are a few of her promises we can be certain she will keep.

And we are left with Donald Trump, a man who cannot in any way be labeled with any possible sense of Republicanism, whatever that might be these days. We can have a vague, but probably accurate, sense that he would do less damage to the Constitution than Hillary, but his policies seem to be whatever he is thinking in the milliseconds before he speaks. His unforced political errors may yet do him in, yet Americans are so sick of both political parties and of the entire federal government, they may elect him as little more than an out of control wrecking machine.

Sadly, I can’t say with certainty that isn’t what we need, or that it would necessarily be a bad thing, compared to the alternative.

What purpose did the conventions serve? To demonstrate just how desperate our situation really is.

JoshuaPundit : I think the conventions were useful in the sense that they provided truth in labeling for anyone who observed them with anything like an objective eye and ear.

On the one hand, we had a group of largely patriotic, freedom loving Americans concerned about the future of the country and the growing power of government. And a candidate who sees the the very real problems we face and has the courage to actually name them and promise solutions.

It was a celebration of freedom, G-d, and country.

On the other, we had pretty much the opposite. Even our country’s flag was conspicuously absent until even the tame media picked up on it and flags were hurriedly brought in. It was a celebration of policies that have involved real decline in our economy, our foreign policy and the rule of law. The Wikileaks e-mails release only emphasized the cynical, corrupt nature of the entire enterprise and of their candidate.

Believe it or not, the treatment of the losing candidate and his supporters in each party was a real indicator of how the two conventions compared.

On the Republican side, no one prevented Ted Cruz’s supporters from airing their views, and Cruz was allowed to speak, although he acted despicably and egotistically. Even many people who used to support and respect him were shocked at his behavior, which hurt party unity when he could easily have helped heal it. Yet he was still allowed to speak.

On the Democrat side, Bernie Sanders’ supporters had their signs confiscated, were warned not to wear ‘Bernie’ attire and were even thrown out of the convention. Even the tactic of dimming the lights to avoid showing large scale walk outs and booing to the TV audience was used.

Sanders would never have been allowed to address the convention if he hadn’t endorsed Hillary Clinton, and as I pointed out, there’s every indication that he was handsomely rewarded financially for selling out his followers.

In short, the conventions pretty much mirrored both the two parties and the candidates they nominated

Watching some of the highlights of the Republican National Convention and the Democrat National Convention one would think the presidential nominees were vying for the highest office of two completely different nations.

The drama of the Republican National Convention concerned itself with whether the party would listen to the voice and vote of the people and nominate Donald J. Trump and whether Senator Ted Cruz would endorse Trump. The message from the RNC promised a return to the rule of law, restoring sensible immigration policy, and bringing jobs back to America. After nearly eight years under President Obama, Republicans believe we are no better off and in fact are less safe, less free, and more in debt than ever before in our history. The media calls Trump’s vision of America dark, but many of us believe we are in a dark place in America today. Acknowledging this reality is the start to setting us back on the right course of action. From the media coverage the event seemed well controlled. Overall I would say it was mediocre in its scheduling and content presentation… a bit boring.

The Democrat National Convention, on the other hand, was presented more like an awards show where we knew the ending before it started. The Sanders supporters protested outside and inside and disrupted some of the speakers to the point where they had to put in white noise machines above them to drown out their voices. The protests continued outside daily although most of the media stopped covering them after the first day. Many of the Sanders supporters left after the first day and there were so many empty seats that ads were placed on Craigslist for actors and seat fillers at fifty dollars a day. Bernie Sanders looked like the unhappiest man in the room as his claims of the game being rigged were verified by leaks of hacked emails coming out of the DNC between the operatives. Still he soldiered on and threw his support behind Hillary. Of course, Hillary graciously commended Bernie for his progressive economic and social justice issues and told him “your cause is our cause.” She said of him and his supporters: “Our country needs your ideas, energy and passion. That is the only way we can turn our progressive platform into real change for America.” They seemed to be in damage control most of the event. First the email hacking story came out and then it was reported there were no American flags anywhere to be seen. It was the media that shamed them into putting some flags on the stage.

Michelle Obama tried to convince us what a great job her husband has done and how much better we are today than when he took office. She still speaks of how she is living in a house built by slaves, continuing to play the victim-race card. Her negative view of America in spite of all she and her husband have achieved has become tiresome.

Bill Clinton’s little ramblings on how he met and fell in love with “a girl” rang hollow I hope with most Americans. This man defiled the highest office in the world with his actions and perjured himself before Congress and the people. Thanks to him a generation of youth was convinced oral sex wasn’t really sex. In my opinion he singlehandedly did more damage and contributed to the growing moral decline of our society.

President Obama delivered an eloquent speech which brought back memories of how he came to be elected in 2008.

In her acceptance speech, Clinton said “Our Founders fought a revolution and wrote a Constitution so America would never be a nation where one person had all the power.” I am always amazed how the left cleverly weaves the Founding Fathers and the Constitution into their speeches. We know how they vilified the Tea Party for trying to restore our government to what the Founders envisioned but they still bring it out when it serves their purpose of deception.

What Hillary really hopes to accomplish was revealed on the Sunday Fox interview with Chris Wallace, where she spoke about changes to the Second Amendment. Not only did she say we need to come together to pass reasonable gun control, she told Wallace she believed ALL OF OUR RIGHTS, not just our Second Amendment right to bear arms, “but EVERY right that we have, is open to and even subject to reasonable regulations.” One can only imagine what the IRS would do under a Clinton presidency to stifle the free speech of conservative organizations and individuals. A President Clinton would bring more government regulation and programs. She promises a stimulus bill larger than the one President Obama passed, more money thrown to private corporations in public-private partnerships to advance a renewable energy agenda, and we know the world has become a more unstable place during her tenure as Secretary of State.

As a woman I am ashamed the first woman nominated to run for president on a major party ticket is Hillary Clinton. Her nomination is not a proud moment in America’s history.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?